5.3 Taqlīdning haqiqati - Islomiy shaxsiyat | Quran Course

5.3 Taqlīdning haqiqati - Islomiy shaxsiyat | Quran Course

Birinchidan: Agar uning ijtihodida tayangan dalili zaif (da’if) ekani, boshqa mujtahidning dalili esa u ishlatgan dalildan kuchliroq ekani ayon bo‘lsa, u holda u ijtihodi olib kelgan hukmni tark etishi va dalil jihatidan kuchliroq bo‘lgan hukmni qabul qilishi vojibdir. Unga birinchi ijtihodi bilan erishgan hukmda davom etishi harom. Yangi hukmni qabul qilishdan uni faqat yangi mujtahiddan boshqa hech kim bunday fikrda bo‘lmagani yoki bu hukm ilgari hech kim tomonidan qo‘llab-quvvatlanmagani sababli to‘sib qo‘yish kerak emas. Bu taqvo (Allohdan qo‘rqish) ga zid, chunki muhim narsa dalilning kuchi, uni necha kishi aytgani yoki qanchalik qadimiyligi emas. Sahoba ijtihodlarida qanchalar xato bo‘lgani, keyinroq bu xatolar tobe’in yoki tobe’i tobe’inlarga ayon bo‘lgani qanchalik ko‘p! Agar mujtahidning dalili zaifligi va boshqasining dalili kuchliligi barcha dalillar va ulardan chiqariladigan xulosalarni ko‘rib chiqmasdan, faqat tarjeeh (ustunlik berish) orqali ayon bo‘lsa, bunday holatda u muqallid hisoblanadi, chunki u tarjeeh yo‘li bilan boshqa birovning fikrini qabul qilgan bo‘ladi. Buning misoli shundaki, ikki hukm orasida qolgan muqallid shar’iy murajjih (ustunlik beruvchi sabab) asosida ulardan birini afzal ko‘radi. Agar uning dalili zaifligi va boshqasining dalili kuchliligi muhokama, dalillarni o‘rganish va istinbot (xulosa chiqarish) orqali ayon bo‘lsa va shu yo‘l bilan u boshqa bir kishining fikriga teng keladigan qarorga kelsa, u holda u muqallid emas, balki birinchi ijtihodining noto‘g‘riligi o‘ziga ayon bo‘lgan mujtahiddir. U shunda o‘zi chiqargan boshqa fikrga qaytadi, xuddi Imom Shofe’iy bir qator masalalarda shunday qilgani kabi.

First: When it appears that the evidence on which he relied in his Ijtihād is weak (da’if) and the evidence of another mujtahid is stronger than the evidence he used. In such a case he is obliged to leave the rule to which his Ijtihād had led to and adopt the rule which is evidentially stronger. It is forbidden for him to continue on the first rule which he had reached by his Ijtihād. He should not be prevented from adopting the new rule simply because the new mujtahid was the only one to hold such an opinion or because this rule has not been espoused by anyone before. That goes against taqwa (the fear of Allah ), because what matters is the strength of the evidence and not the number of people that have held it or how ancient they are. How many an Ijtihād of the Sahabah  there were whose error later became apparent to the Tabi’een or Tabi’-Tabi’een. When the weakness of the mujtahid’s evidence, and the strength of someone else’s evidence becomes apparent through outweighing (tarjeeh), without considering all of the evidences and the inference from them, then in such a situation, he will be considered a muqallid, because he has adopted the opinion of someone else by outweighing (tarjeeh). His example is that of the muqallid who is confronted with two rules, so he gave preponderance to one of them according to a Sharī’ah qualification (murajjih Shar’i). If the weakness of his evidence and the strength of someone else’s evidence becomes apparent through judgement (muhakama) and pursuance of evidences and inference (istinbat) and through this he arrives at an opinion which is the opinion of another person. In that case he is not a muqallid but a mujtahid to whom the incorrectness of the initial Ijtihād became apparent. So he retracts from it to another opinion which he has deduced himself as happened with al-Shafi’i in a number of cases.

Ikkinchidan: Agar bir mujtahidga boshqa mujtahidning bog‘lash (rabt) qobiliyati kuchliroq, haqiqatni yaxshiroq anglashi, dalillarni chuqurroq tushunishi yoki sam’iy dalillarni (adilla sam’iyya) yaxshiroq bilishi ma’lum bo‘lsa va u biror masala yoki masalalarni to‘g‘ri tushunishda boshqa mujtahid haqiqatga yaqinroq ekani unga ustun ko‘rinsa, bunday holatda unga o‘zining ijtihodi bilan erishgan hukmini tark etib, ijtihodiga o‘zidan ko‘ra ko‘proq ishonadigan boshqa mujtahidga ergashishi joiz bo‘ladi. Ash-Sha‘biydan to‘g‘ri rivoyat qilinganidek, Abu Muso o‘z fikrini Aliyning fikri uchun tark etar edi. Zayd o‘z fikrini Ubay ibn Ka‘bning fikri uchun, Abdulloh ibn Mas‘ud esa o‘z fikrini Umarning fikri uchun tark etar edi. Abu Bakr va Umar haqida ham Alining fikri uchun o‘z fikrlaridan qaytganlari haqida rivoyatlar bor. Bu mujtahidning boshqa birovning ijtihodiga ishonishi asosida o‘z fikridan qaytishini ko‘rsatadi. Biroq bu mujtahid uchun ruxsat bo‘lib, majburiy emas.

Second: When it appears to a mujtahid that another mujtahid has a greater capacity to link or has better awareness of the reality, or stronger comprehension of the evidences or is more acquainted with the textual evidences (adilla sam’iyya) etc. And it becomes preponderate to him that the other mujtahid is closer to the truth in understanding a specific issue or issues as they are. It is allowed for him in this case to leave the rule he has reached through his Ijtihād and follow the other mujtahid in whose Ijtihād he has more confidence than his own. It has been correctly reported on the authority of al-Sha’bi that Abu Musa used to leave his opinion for the opinion of ‘Ali. And that Zayd used to leave his opinion for Ubay ibn Ka’b’s opinion, and that Abdullah Ibn Masud used to leave his opinion for the opinion of ‘Umar. Incidents have been reported about Abu Bakr and ‘Umar that they used to leave their opinion for the opinion of ‘Ali. This indicates the retraction of a mujtahid from his opinion for the opinion of someone else based on his trust in the Ijtihād of the other mujtahid. However, this is a permission for the mujtahid and not obligatory.

va uning hukmi barcha musulmonlarga nisbatan ijro etilishi lozim.

and that his decree is to be implemented on all Muslims.

To'rtinchi: Agar birlashtirish, ya'ni musulmonlarning yaxshiligi uchun qilingan biror fikr bo'lsa, bunday vaziyatda mujtahid o'zi ijtihodi bilan erishgan narsani tark etishi joizdir, xuddi Usmonga bay'at berilganda bo'lgani kabi. Rivoyat qilinishicha, Abdurrahmon ibn Avf odamlarning fikrini alohida-alohida, guruh-guruh bo'lib, birga va ayrim-ayrim, yashirin va oshkora so'radi. So'ng odamlarni masjidga to'pladi, minbarga chiqdi va uzoq duo qildi. Keyin Aliyni chaqirib, uning qo'lidan ushladi va dedi: "Sen menga va'da berasanmi, Allohning Kitobi, Uning Rasulining sunnati va undan keyin Abu Bakr va Umar tomonidan bildirilgan fikrlar asosida hukm qilasanmi?" Ali dedi: "Men Allohning Kitobi va Uning Rasuli ﷺ sunnati asosida sizga va'da beraman, lekin o'z ijtihodimni ishlataman." Shunda u qo'lini qo'yib yubordi va Usmonni chaqirib, unga dedi: "Sen menga va'da berasanmi, Allohning Kitobi, Uning Rasulining ﷺ sunnati va undan keyin Abu Bakr va Umar tomonidan bildirilgan fikrlar asosida hukm qilasanmi?" Usmon dedi: "Alloh haqqi, ha!" Shunda Abdurrahmon boshini masjid shipiga ko'tarib, qo'li Usmonning qo'lida ekan, uch marta dedi: "Ey Alloh, eshit va guvoh bo'l!" So'ng unga bay'at berdi, odamlar masjidga bay'at berish uchun ulug'vor ravishda kelishdi va Aliy Usmonga bay'at bergunicha odamlar orasidan o'tib borishiga to'g'ri keldi. Shunday qilib, Abdurrahmon mujtahid Aliy va Usmondan o'z ijtihodini tark etib, barcha masalalarda Abu Bakr va Umarning ijtihodiga amal qilishni talab qildi, bu masalalar bo'yicha u o'z ijtihodini ishlatgan va ikkisining yoki birining fikriga zid fikri bo'lsinmi yoki hali ijtihod qilmagan bo'lsinmi, farqi yo'q. Sahobalar bu bilan rozi bo'lishdi va Usmonga shu asosda bay'at berishdi. Hatto o'z ijtihodini tark etishdan bosh tortgan Aliy ham shu asosda Usmonga bay'at berdi. Shu bilan birga, bu mujtahid uchun ruxsat etilgan, majburiy emas, buni ʿAlining Abu Bakr va ʿUmarning ijtihodi uchun o‘z ijtihodidan voz kechishdan bosh tortgani dalolat qiladi. Unga bu borada hech kim tanbeh bermagan, bu esa bunning ruxsat etilgan va majburiy bo‘lmaganini bildiradi.

Fourth: If there is an opinion by which it is intended to unify the Muslims, for the good of the Muslims, in such a situation it is allowed for the mujtahid to leave what he reached by his Ijtihād, as happened with Uthman when he was given the bay’a. It has been reported that Abdur-Rahman ibn ‘Awf, after he had consulted the people individually and in groups, together and separately, secretly and openly, he gathered the people in the Mosque, ascended the pulpit and made a long supplication. He then called ‘Ali and took hold of his hand and said: Do you pledge to me that you will rule according to the Book of Allah  and the Sunnah of His Messenger  and the opinions held after him  by Abu Bakr And ‘Umar? Ali said: I pledge to you on the basis of the Book of Allah  and the Sunnah of His Messenger , but I will exercise my own Ijtihād. So he let go of his hand and called for ‘Uthman and said to him: Do you pledge to me that you will rule according to the Book of Allah  and the Sunnah of His Messenger  and the opinions held after him  by Abu Bakr And ‘Umar? ‘Uthman said: By Allah, Yes! So Abdur-Rahman raised his head towards the roof of the Mosque, his hand in Uthman’s hand, and said three times: O Allah , hear and bear witness! Then he gave him the pledge and the people thronged to the mosque to give bay’a to him making Ali having to push his way through the people until he gave his pledge to ‘Uthman. Thus, Abdur-Rahman demanded from a mujtahid, ‘Ali and ‘Uthman, to leave his Ijtihād and follow the Ijtihād of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar in all issues, whether he has exercised his own Ijtihād regarding them and has an opinion which contradicts the opinion of both or one of them, or he has not exercised Ijtihād yet. The Sahabah  concurred with this and they gave bay’a to ‘Uthman on that basis. Even ‘Ali who refused to leave his Ijtihād, gave bay’a to ‘Uthman on that basis. However, this is permitted for the mujtahid and not obligatory, as evidenced by ‘Ali’s refusal to leave his Ijtihād for the Ijtihād of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar. No one rebuked him for that, which indicates that it is permitted and not obligatory.

Bularning barchasi ijtihod qilgan va ijtihodi unga biror masala bo‘yicha hukmga olib kelgan mujtahid haqidadir. Ijtihod qilmagan masala bo‘yicha mujtahid esa boshqa mujtahidlarga ergashishi va o‘sha masalada ijtihod qilmasligi joiz, chunki ijtihod farzi kifoya bo‘lib, farzi ayn emas. Agar u masala bo‘yicha Allohning hukmini bilsa, mujtahid uchun o‘sha masalada ijtihod qilish vojib emas. Ta’kidlanishicha, Umar Abu Bakrga shunday degan, bu rivoyat to‘g‘ri naql qilingan:

All of this is with respect to the mujtahid who has actually exercised Ijtihād and his Ijtihād has led him to a rule on an issue. As for the mujtahid who has not exercised Ijtihād on an issue, it is allowed for him to follow other mujtahidin and not make Ijtihād on the issue, since Ijtihād is an obligation of sufficiency (fard ‘ala al-kifaya) and not an individual obligation (fard ‘ayn). If he knows the rule of Allah  on an issue, then it is not an obligation on the mujtahid to make Ijtihād with regards to it. It has been correctly reported about ‘Umar that he said to Abu Bakr:

Shuningdek, to'g'ri rivoyat qilinganidek, ‘Umar roziyallohu anhu Qur’on va Sunnatda ikki tomon o'rtasidagi nizoga kerakli hukmni topa olmay qolganida, uning huzuriga kelgan ikki tomon masalasida Abu Bakr roziyallohu anhuning biror hukmi bor-yo'qligini qarardi. Agar Abu Bakr bu masalada biror hukm chiqargan bo'lsa, u ham shu hukmni chiqarardi. Ibn Mas’ud roziyallohu anhu ‘Umar roziyallohu anhuning fikrini qabul qilgani ishonchli rivoyat qilingan. Bu ish sahobalarning ko'z o'ngida va quloqlari oldida ko'plab voqealarda sodir bo'lar edi va hech kim e'tiroz bildirmasdi. Shunday qilib, bu ijmo’i sukutiy (jim qolish orqali hosil bo'lgan ijmo’) bo'ldi.

It has also been correctly reported about ‘Umar that when he found himself completely at a loss to find in the Qur’ān and Sunnah what was needed when two disputing parties come to him, that he would see if Abu Bakr had a decision in the matter. If he found that Abu Bakr had passed a certain judgement on the issue he would pass the same judgement. It has been authentically reported about Ibn Mas’ud  that he used to adopt the opinion of ‘Umar . That used to take place before the eyes and ears of the Sahabah  in numerous incidents and no one objected. Thus, it became a tacit ijma’ (ijma’ sukuti).

Taqlid mujtahidning amaliyotida haqiqat shunday. Mujtahid bo'lmagan kishining taqlidiga kelsak, u olim bo'lsinmi yoki oddiy odam ('omiy) bo'lsinmi, biror masalaga duch kelganda, undan so'ramasdan boshqa biror ish qilishga ruxsat yo'q. Chunki Alloh bandalarni johillik orqali qullikka (ibodat qilishga) majbur qilmadi, balki ularni ilm orqali qullikka (ibodat qilishga) majbur qildi. U zot aytadi:

This is the reality of the mujtahid’s practise of Taqlīd. As for the Taqlīd of the non-mujtahid whether he is a learned person or a layman (‘aammi), when he faces an issue, he is not permitted to do anything other than ask about it because Allah  did not enslave (make them to worship him) the creation through ignorance, rather, He  enslaved them (made them worship him) through knowledge. He  said:

Ushbu ko‘rsatma Sahobalar davrida ham umumiy tarzda davom etdi: mujtahidlardan huquqiy fatvolar so‘raladi va ular Shariat hukmlarida ortidan ergashilardi. Ular dalilni zikr qilmasdan savollarga javob berishni o‘z zimalariga olar edilar, va hech kim bunga qarshi chiqmasdi. Bularning barchasi hech kimning e’tirozisiz sodir bo‘ldi. Shu sababli bu ijmo edi. Tobi’inlar va tobi’i-tobi’inlar davrida ham musulmonlar orasida bu keng tarqalgan amaliyot bo‘lgan va bu borada minglab voqealar naql qilingan.

This instruction continued to be general during the time of the Sahabah, where the mujtahidun used to be asked for legal opinions and be followed in the Sharī’ah rules. They would undertake the answering of questions without mentioning the evidence, and no one forbade them from doing that. All of this took place without any objection from anyone. Thus it was an ijma’. It was commonly practised by the Muslims also in the time of the Tabi’een and tabi-Tabi’een, and thousands of incidents have been reported to that effect.

Xuddi olim yoki oddiy kishi uchun Sharīʻat hukmida boshqalarga ergashish, ya’ni ulardan so‘rash joiz bo‘lgani kabi, o‘sha kishi uchun ham Sharīʻat hukmini o‘zi tushungancha boshqalarga o‘rgatish joiz bo‘ladi, qachonki u uni to‘g‘ri tushunganiga ishonch hosil qilgan bo‘lsa va bu Sharīʻat hukmini o‘zi ham amal qilish uchun qabul qilgan bo‘lsa, ya’ni u bu hukm Sharīʻat hukmi ekanligiga aniq ishongan bo‘lsa. Agar u dalilning sahihligiga ishonchi bo‘lmagani yoki unga buni o‘rgatgan kishining dinidagi (diyonatidagi) ishonchliligiga ishonmagani sababli bu hukmga ishonmasa, uni amal qilish maqsadida boshqalarga o‘rgatishi joiz emas. Agar gapirishga to‘g‘ri kelsa, u bu hukm haqida o‘zi biladigan narsani aytishi kerak. Hukmni o‘rgangan kishi uni boshqalarga o‘rgatishi joiz, chunki bitta masalani bilgan har bir kishi o‘sha masala bo‘yicha olim hisoblanadi, qachonki u hukm bo‘yicha o‘z bilimiga va masala haqida aytgan gapining rostligiga ishonch bilsa. Ilmni yashirish esa harom qilingan. U aytdi:

Just as it is allowed for the learned person or layman to follow others in the Sharī’ah rule i.e, it is permitted to ask others, In a similar way, it is permitted for him to teach this Sharī’ah rule to others as he understands it, when he is sure that he has understood it correctly, and he has adopted this Sharī’ah rule to act upon it himself i.e, he is sure that it is a Sharī’ah rule. As for if he does not trust this rule due to his lack of confidence in the authenticity of the evidence or lack of trust in the character (deen) of the one who has taught it to him then it is not allowed for him to teach it to others in order to act upon it. If he has to say it, he should say what he knows about it (rule). It is permitted for the one who learns a rule to teach it to others because anyone who has knowledge even of a single issue he is considered to be knowledgeable about that issue, when he has trust in his knowledge of the rule and in the truthfulness of what he has said about the issue. The concealment of knowledge is forbidden. He  said:

Bu umumiy bo'lib, bitta yoki bir nechta masalaga oid bilimga taalluqlidir.

This is general and applicable to knowledge of a single or many issues.

Biroq, olim (muta’allim) o‘zi o‘rgangan hukmni kimga o‘rgatgan bo‘lsa, o‘sha kishining muqallidi hisoblanmaydi. Balki u shariat hukmini istinbot qilgan mujtahidning muqallididir. Bu hukmni o‘rganish esa faqat ilm o‘rganish hisoblanadi. Chunki taqlid faqat mujtahidga qilinadi, shariat hukmini faqat bilgan kishiga emas. Mujtahid bo‘lmagan kishi ilmda qanchalik yuksalgan bo‘lmasin, uning olim sifatida taqlid qilinishi joiz emas, chunki undan faqat ilm olish mumkin, taqlid qilish mumkin emas.

However, the learned person (muta’allim) is not considered to be a follower (muqallid) of the one who has taught him the rule. Rather he is the muqallid of the mujtahid who has deduced the Sharī’ah rule. And the learning of this rule is considered only as learning. Since Taqlīd can only be made to a mujtahid and not to someone who only has the knowledge of a rule. However much a non-mujtahid attains in terms of knowledge, it is not permitted to make Taqlīd to him in his capacity as learned person, because it is only permitted to learn from him, not make Taqlīd to him.

Muqallid-ga ikki fikr o'rtasida ixtilof yuz berganda tanlov berilmaydi, masalan, mujtahidlar ikki xil fikrga kelganda. Demak, ikki fikr muqallidga yetib keladi, ya'ni ilohiy hukm unga ikki fikr ko'rinishida yetib keladi. Ba'zilar muqallid uchun ikki fikr bir fikr bilan teng, deb o'ylaydilar. Ular muqallidda bu ikki fikr o'rtasida tanlash huquqi bor, deb hisoblaydilar, shunda u o'z xohish-istaklariga, o'z manfaatiga mos kelgan narsaga ergashadi, unga zid bo'lgan fikrga emas. Ammo vaziyat bunday emas, chunki musulmon shar'iy hukmga amal qilishga buyurilgan. Shar'iy hukm Shoriining kalomidir, kalom esa yagonadir, undan ko'p bo'la olmaydi. Kalomni tushunishda bir necha xil fikr bo'lsa, har bir tushuncha o'zini tushunuvchi va unga taqlid qiluvchi uchun shar'iy hukm bo'ladi. Bundan boshqasi u uchun shar'iy hukm sanalmaydi. Unda u qanday qilib ikki xil fikrga amal qila oladi? Muqallid mujtahidlardan ziddiyatli ikki fikrni topganda, har bir mujtahid o'z dalilining ortidan boradi, va bu dalil ikkinchi mujtahid dalilining talabiga qarama-qarshi talab qiladi. Ularda ikki o'zaro ziddiyatli dalil bor. Ulardan birini xohish-istak asosida tanlash, xohish-istaklarga ergashishdan boshqa narsa emas, bu esa harom qilingan. U aytdi:

The muqallid is not given a choice when a difference of opinion arises, when for instance the mujtahiddin differ on two opinions. So the different opinions reached the muqallid, i.e, the divine rule reached the muqallid as two opinions. Some people think that the two opinions with respect to a muqallid is tantamount to one opinion. They think he has the right to choose between them, so he follows his whims and desires and whatever serves his purpose and not the opinion that goes against it. However, the situation is not like that, since the Muslim is ordered to adopt the hukm Shari’. The hukm Shar’i is the speech of the Legislator and there is only one speech, there cannot be more than one. When there is more than one understanding of the speech then each understanding constitutes a Sharī’ah rule with respect to the one who understands it and the one who makes Taqlīd to him. Anything other than that is not considered a hukm Shar’i with respect to him. So how is it possible then for him to adopt two different opinions? When a muqallid finds two opinions from the mujtahiddin which conflict with each other, then each mujtahid is a follower of an evidence which demands the opposite of what the evidence of the other mujtahid demands. They possess two conflicting evidences. Following one of them according to one’s whims is nothing short of following one’s whims and desires and this is forbidden. He  said:

Agar ikki mujtahid o'rtasida ixtilof bo'lsa, muqallid masalani Allohga va Rasulga qaytarishi kerak, bu esa muqallid uchun Alloh va Rasuli rozi bo'lgan tarjihga (ustun ko'rilgan dalilga) murojaat qilish orqali amalga oshiriladi, xuddi mujtahid Allohning Kitobi va Uning Rasuli ﷺ sunnatiga qaytgani kabi. Alloh va Uning Rasuli rozi bo'lgan narsaga qaytish esa nafs xohishlariga ergashishdan uzoqdir. Muqallid ikki fikrdan birini tanlashi kerak va bu tanlov Alloh va Uning Rasuli ﷺ rozi bo'lgan tarjihga asoslangan bo'lishi lozim. Muqallid ikki fikrning ikkalasiga ham amal qila olmaydi, chunki ular bir-biriga zid. Tarjihsiz ikki mazhabdan yoki ikki xil hukmdan birini tanlashi esa nafs xohishiga asoslangan tanlovdir. Bu Allohga va Rasulga qaytishga ziddir. Muqallid bir mujtahidni boshqasidan yoki bir hukmni boshqa ko'p hukmlardan ustun qo'yadigan tarjih vositalari (murajjahat) orasida birinchi va eng muhimi ilm va fahm (tushunish) eng yaxshi bo'lishidir. Ibn Mas'udning hadisida rivoyat qilinadi: u ﷺ aytdi:

When two mujtahids differ, the muqallid must refer it (the issue) to Allah  and the Messenger  which is done by referring it to a preponderant which, for the muqallid, Allah  and the Messenger  are pleased with, in a similar way as the mujtahid returns to the Book of Allah  and the Sunnah of His Messenger . And returning to what Allah  and His Messenger  are pleased with is far from following one’s whims and desires. The muqallid must choose one of the two opinions and this choice must be based on the preponderant which Allah  and His Messenger  are pleased with. It is not possible for the muqallid to act upon both opinions since they conflict. And his choice of one of the two mazhabs or one of the two different rules without a preponderant is a choice based on whims and desires. It is contrary to returning to Allah  and the Messenger . The preponderants (murajjahat) by which the muqallid prefers a mujtahid over another, or one rule over many other rules, the first and foremost of them are: the question of best knowledge and understanding. It is narrated in the hadīth of Ibn Mas’ud that he  said:

Shuning uchun muqallid kishi o‘zi bilgan mujtahidning ilmi va ishonchliligi bo‘yicha tarjih qiladi, chunki rivoyat qiluvchi guvohning guvohligini qabul qilinishi uchun uning ishonchli bo‘lishi shart qilingan. Shar’iy hukmni ta’lim orqali yetkazish esa bu hukm shar’iy hukm ekanligiga guvohlik berishdir, shuning uchun hukmni qabul qilish uchun uni o‘rgatuvchi ustozning obro‘li va adolatli bo‘lishi zarur. Demak, hukmni chiqaruvchining adolatli bo‘lishi undan ham ko‘proq darajada lozimdir. Shunday ekan, a‘adala (adolat) shart bo‘lib, shar’iy hukmni olinadigan shaxs, u mujtahid bo‘lsinmi yoki ustoz bo‘lsinmi, bu sifatga ega bo‘lishi kerak. Bu aniq masaladir. Bilim esa tarjih qilinadigan jihatdir. Kim Shofe’iy ilmda ustunroq va uning mazhabi to‘g‘riroq ekanligiga ishonsa, unga o‘z xohish-istaklariga ko‘ra, uga zid keladigan boshqa mazhabni tanlash huquqi yo‘q. Kim Ja’far as-Sodiq ilmda ustunroq va uning mazhabi to‘g‘riroq ekanligiga ishonsa, unga ham xohishiga ko‘ra uning mazhabiga qarshi chiqish huquqi yo‘q. Aksincha, dalil bilan tarjih qilinib, rojih (ustun) fikr aniq bo‘lganda, unga o‘z mazhabiga zid bo‘lsa ham shu fikrga amal qilish vojibdir. Tarjih zarur, va bu tarjih xohish-istaklarga asoslanmasligi ham zarurdir. Muqallid o‘ziga yoqadigan masalalarni mazhablardan tanlab olish huquqiga ega emas. Aksincha, bu turdagi tarjih mujtahid uchun ikki ziddiyatli dalilni tarjih qilishga o‘xshaydi. Tarjih qilishda u qarinalar (dalolat beruvchi belgilar) bilan birga keladigan xabarning to‘g‘riligiga tayanadi. Bu holat butun bir mazhabni qabul qilish uchun tarjih qilishda o‘rinlidir, har bir alohida hukm uchun emas.

Therefore, the muqallid outweighs what he knows of the mujtahid’s knowledge and trustworthiness because trustworthiness is a condition in accepting the testimony of a witness. Conveying a hukm Shar’i through teaching is a testification that this is a hukm Shar’i therefore, for accepting the rule, the integrity of the teacher who teaches it is essential. So the integrity of the one who deduces it is by greater reason. So the a‘adala (integrity) is a condition which the person from whom we take the hukm Shar’i must qualify, whether he is a mujtahid or a teacher. It is definite. As for knowledge it is the preponderant. Whoever believes that Shafi’i was more knowledgeable and his mazhab is more likely to be correct, then he does not have the right to adopt a mazhab according to his whims and desires which contradicts it. And whoever believes that Ja’far al-sadiq is more knowledgeable and his mazhab is more likely to be correct, then he does not have the right to go against it based on his whims. Rather it is obligatory upon him to adopt what conflicts with his mazhab when the preponderant opinion becomes apparent after outweighing the evidence. Tarjeeh (outweighing) is necessary and this outweighing should not be based on whims and desires is also necessary. The muqallid does not have the right to pick and choose from the mazhabs issues which are more agreeable to him. Rather this type of outweighing is like the outweighing of two conflicting evidences for the mujtahid. To perform tarjeeh (outweighing) he relies on the veracity of the information which comes with the qara’in (indications). This is the case when outweighing for adopting in total (i.e a mazhab), not for every single rule.

Taqlīdda e'tiborga olinadigan ustunlik ikki xil bo'ladi: Birinchi: umumiy ustunlik, u ergashmoqchi bo'lgan shaxsga tegishli bo'lib, masalan, Ja'far as-Sodiq va Molik ibn Anas kabilar. Ikkinchi: xususiy malaka, u ergashmoqchi bo'lgan muayyan shar'iy hukmga tegishli bo'ladi. Eng bilimdon bo'lish masalasi ikkinchi toifaga kiradi. Agar Molik davrida Madinada biror voqea yuz bergan bo'lsa, u holda Abu Yusufga qaraganda Molik o'sha voqea haqida ko'proq bilimga ega hisoblanadi. Ja'far davrida Kufada sodir bo'lgan voqea haqida esa, Ahmad ibn Hanbaldan ko'ra Ja'farning bilimi ustun deb hisoblanadi. Shunday ekan, muqallid mujtahid haqida o'ziga yetib kelgan ma'lumotga murojaat qiladi.

The preponderant in Taqlīd is two: First: a general preponderant, which relates to the the person he wishes to follow such as Ja’far al-Sadiq and Malik ibn Anas for example. And second, the specific qualification which is with regards to a specific hukm Shar’i which he wishes to follow. The question of best knowledge comes in the second category. If an incident had taken place in Medina in the time of Malik, then he is regarded as more knowledgeable about it than Abu Yusuf. And the incident which took place in Kufa in the time of Ja’far, he is considered more knowledgeable about it than Ahmad ibn Hanbal. So the muqallid refers to the information about the mujtahid which reaches him.

Eng yaxshi bilim bo'lishi taqlid qilish uchun yagona shart emas, va u taqlidning o'zi uchun shart ham emas. Balki, bu taqlid qilmoqchi bo'lgan kishi uchun umumiy shart bo'lib, umuman olganda, amal qilinadigan hukm uchun qo'yiladigan shartdir. Hukmga nisbatan haqiqiy shart esa, unga tayangan dalilning kuchidir. Ammo muqallid dalilni tushuna olmagani uchun, uning o'rniga eng yaxshi bilim mezoni e'tiborga olinadi. Muqallidlarning holatlariga ko'ra turlicha bo'ladigan, tan olingan ko'plab shartlar mavjud.

Having the best knowledge is not the only qualification and nor is it the qualification for Taqlīd in itself. Rather it is the general qualification for the one who wishes to make Taqlīd and in general terms for the rule which is intended to be followed. As for the true qualification with regards to the rule, it is the strength of the evidence on which reliance is put. However, because the muqallid cannot understand the evidence, therefore the criterion of best knowledge is considered instead. There are many recognised qualifcations which vary according to the states of the muqallids